Must we be calvinists?

[quantumfaith]

I think the best kingdom builders should win. I don't think EITHER side should use established power to stifle the growth of the other.

If Calvinists are better at persuading people that what they believe is true- then Calvinists take over.

If Arminians are better at it- then Arminians take over.

What I don't like is when one side is better at winning people, doing missions, building churches, etc... but they are assaulted by the established power simply so the established power can STAY the established power.

There have been times that Arminians were better at convincing people. Under Finney Arminians took over. Calvinists reigned before Finney.

Now there is a resurgence of Calvinism.

Let the best Kingdom builders win.

Power will shift from generation to generation. Let it occur naturally. Don't try to legislate it away.

Agreed. I do however think it is essential that any and all be upfront about their positions in any given location and thus allowing the congregants to decide what "flavor" of theology they wish to support and use in their efforts to be salt and light. Being upfront, in my eyes, requires the necessity of and clear and honest dialogue, education on such issues and positions may be required for that discussion to take place.

 

[Herald]

So what's the problem with this?

I will be surprised if Jerome provides a straight answer. He throws out drive-by comments but never offers an opinion.

 

[Herald]

Thank you Herald for addressing the point of the OP.

It seems my short example was not very clear to many people. I'm not suggesting the pastor hide his beliefs, I'm suggesting that he explain them, and explain why he does not call himself a calvinist.

I'm especially interested in the Amaraldian point, because chances are, only about 1-5% of pastor search committee members know what that is. So, if they ask an amaraldian, "are you a calvinist?" Should he answer no and explain why, or answer yes and let them assume what his beliefs are without him ever explaining them.

I am not sure about the accuracy of your 1-5% statistic, although I will say that a lot of mainline Baptist churches are ill prepared to vette a pastoral candidate on doctrinal knowledge and personal convictions.

If the pastoral candidate leans towards Calvinistic soteriology he will save himself a lot of heartache and aggravation if he brings up the topic. Even if the candidate is an Amyraldian he should still bring it up. Unless the candidate chooses not to preach on the topic (which is dishonest by the way), it will eventually come out.

So if you were an amaraldian, would you still identify as a calvinist when asked?

Since an Amyraldian is not a Calvinist, then no, I would not identify myself as one. But I would come clean on T.U.I.P.

 

[Luke2427]

Agreed. I do however think it is essential that any and all be upfront about their positions in any given location and thus allowing the congregants to decide what "flavor" of theology they wish to support and use in their efforts to be salt and light. Being upfront, in my eyes, requires the necessity of and clear and honest dialogue, education on such issues and positions may be required for that discussion to take place.

Yes, but we need to define what we mean by "upfront".

No pastoral candidate should feel obligated to reveal any particular about himself that is openly embraced by the denomination.

Calvinism is perfectly consistent with both the historical standpoints of the denomination and with the Baptist Faith and Message.

Why should he be expected to come in declaring something about himself that Southern Baptists have embraced warmly since 1845?

Now, if by upfront you mean that when he is asked by a pulpit committee specifically what his soteriology is- CERTAINLY. He should be totally forthcoming.

But if not asked he ought to assume that it is a non-issue for that church.

It IS a non-issue for the denomination of which that church is a part, after all.

 

[Iconoclast]

Jerome

Oops. Elsewhere Fred Malone admitted the upshot of their experiment in church Reformitude:

It was not an experiment it was a much needed cleansing....did you read the whole article?

"A co-pastor, who was added to serve with Ernie, decided he could no longer stay in the SBC

.

Sure///he probably read some BB posts:laugh:

He resigned and took many of the active young couples with him and formed Emmanuel Baptist Church, a Reformed Baptist congregation.

Sure....the sheep probably begged him to flee out of Babylon:thumbs:

North Pompano never recovered from the split and finally was handed over to the local Baptist association for oversight."

The dead parts remained at the location,and they probably still meet, got their old spots back in the pew......and just show up week after week ,because no one covered them with dirt yet.:wavey:

I am here to help you understand these confusing events Jerome....no need to worry.

 

[Luke2427]

Jerome



It was not an experiment it was a much needed cleansing....did you read the whole article?
.

Sure///he probably read some BB posts:laugh:


Sure....the sheep probably begged him to flee out of Babylon:thumbs:



The dead parts remained at the location,and they probably still meet, got their old spots back in the pew......and just show up week after week ,because no one covered them with dirt yet.:wavey:

I am here to help you understand these confusing events Jerome....no need to worry.

This is what I suspect as well.

 

[InTheLight]

I'm glad you brought up lutherans...Since many of those who hold to DoG might actually say they think Luther's views on soteriology are formulated a bit better... could we not say we are Lutherans? If not, why not...One might say, well, we don't believe in consubtantiation, we don't baptize babies, we put the pulpit in the middle...but in soteriology...we are lutherans!

Nope, can't say it. Lutherans believe that grace is resistible, that believers have free will, and that in certain instances falling away from the faith is possible.

 

[Iconoclast]

Herald

I am not sure about the accuracy of your 1-5% statistic, although I will say that a lot of mainline Baptist churches are ill prepared to vette a pastoral candidate on doctrinal knowledge and personal convictions.

If the pastoral candidate leans towards Calvinistic soteriology he will save himself a lot of heartache and aggravation if he brings up the topic. Even if the candidate is an Amyraldian he should still bring it up. Unless the candidate chooses not to preach on the topic (which is dishonest by the way), it will eventually come out.
Since an Amyraldian is not a Calvinist, then no, I would not identify myself as one. But I would come clean on T.U.I.P.

Sometimes even younger Pastors are still growing and changing their views.
Many see some of the other points , but have struggles with the reality of what they see in scripture and it's implications.

Over time I have seen many who were taught one way, quickly abandon the false ideas when truth was presented clearly.:thumbs:
Another very real problem is that so many of the people have no idea of any doctrinal framework, and consequently are not prepared to discern truth from error. The issues being discussed go right past them because they have been lazy and disobedient,maybe even indifferent to the truth of God.

I have heard many whine....doctrine divides.....why can't we just love one another? Sounds pious enough...but it is a thinly veiled excuse to just go through the motions of being a nominal member , who never really studies to show themselves approved...instead ...it might be a one page daily bread, pop in a christian music CD......then complain if anyone gets interested in any doctine whatsoever:thumbs:
They can then boast...I am just a believer.....I just follow Jesus....it is just me and the Holy Spirit........and then someone asks them a question and they deflect it because they cannot respond biblically.
They excuse it saying I do not follow the TEACHINGS Of MEN......no....not me. I just stand on the word of God! what they need to do is step off their bible, pick it up and study it-
16 Jesus answered them, and said, My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me.

17 If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself.


45 It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me.

Doctrine is given to bring unity, not division;
11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;

12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:

13 Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:

14 That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;

15 But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ:

There is friction here on BB, because some come only to disrupt ,and lie in wait to deceive. If it happens in here, it is happening in local churches all over.

 

[12strings]

Nope, can't say it. Lutherans believe that grace is resistible, that believers have free will, and that in certain instances falling away from the faith is possible.

Lutherans today might...but then, I suspect many presbyterians do as well...Luther himself was very similar to Calvin on soteriology.

 

[12strings]

I am not sure about the accuracy of your 1-5% statistic, although I will say that a lot of mainline Baptist churches are ill prepared to vette a pastoral candidate on doctrinal knowledge and personal convictions.

If the pastoral candidate leans towards Calvinistic soteriology he will save himself a lot of heartache and aggravation if he brings up the topic. Even if the candidate is an Amyraldian he should still bring it up. Unless the candidate chooses not to preach on the topic (which is dishonest by the way), it will eventually come out.

Since an Amyraldian is not a Calvinist, then no, I would not identify myself as one. But I would come clean on T.U.I.P.

I agree with this post. I was just guessing on the percentage, but I can't imagine it is much more than that, since I somehow made it through 4 years of seminary at SBTS without hearing the word until after I graduated.

As one who has interviewed for music positions, I have in the past generally asked the pastor about this topic in the 1st or second phone conversation. Despite varied positions of the pastors, It has never been an uncomfortable conversation, which is a testament to those pastor's clear-headedness and charity.

 

[Jerome]

"A co-pastor, who was added to serve with Ernie, decided he could no longer stay in the SBC. He resigned and took many of the active young couples with him and formed Emmanuel Baptist Church, a Reformed Baptist congregation. North Pompano never recovered from the split and finally was handed over to the local Baptist association for oversight."

So what's the problem with this?

Let's get this straight, you would have no problem if after you had 'reformed' your church, your assistant pastor veered off into another strain of Calvinism, decided he couldn't stand being Southern Baptist, and proceeded to split your church?


This was Ernest Reisinger's church. The cradle of the whole Founder's movement. But Icon characterizes the church after Reisinger 'reformed' it as a Babylon from which to flee? Bizarre.

It was Reisinger who was left with a faithful few to try to clean up the mess left by the internecine Calvinist struggle in the church. Icon characterizes them as the dead parts left at the location.


From Reisinger's biography:

"North Pompano split when an associate pastor placed his independent Baptist loyalties ahead of Ernie's desires to influence the Southern Baptists. "It was a painful division--one from which the church never recovered, even to this day. I still cannot understand or explain why this young man willingly fostered division and controversy when he knew going in that he was being called by a Southern Baptist Church to minister in a Southern Baptist Church.""

Ernest-Reisinger.pdf

 

[Luke2427]

Let's get this straight, you would have no problem if after you had 'reformed' your church, your assistant pastor veered off into another strain of Calvinism, decided he couldn't stand being Southern Baptist, and proceeded to split your church?


This was Ernest Reisinger's church. The cradle of the whole Founder's movement. But Icon characterizes the church after Reisinger 'reformed' it as a Babylon from which to flee? Bizarre.

It was Reisinger who was left with a faithful few to try to clean up the mess left by the internecine Calvinist struggle in the church. Icon characterizes them as the dead parts left at the location.


From Reisinger's biography:

"North Pompano split when an associate pastor placed his independent Baptist loyalties ahead of Ernie's desires to influence the Southern Baptists. "It was a painful division--one from which the church never recovered, even to this day. I still cannot understand or explain why this young man willingly fostered division and controversy when he knew going in that he was being called by a Southern Baptist Church to minister in a Southern Baptist Church.""

Ernest-Reisinger.pdf

I think the best kingdom builders should win. I don't think EITHER side should use established power to stifle the growth of the other.

If Calvinists are better at persuading people that what they believe is true- then Calvinists take over.

If Arminians are better at it- then Arminians take over.

What I don't like is when one side is better at winning people, doing missions, building churches, etc... but they are assaulted by the established power simply so the established power can STAY the established power.

There have been times that Arminians were better at convincing people. Under Finney Arminians took over. Calvinists reigned before Finney.

Now there is a resurgence of Calvinism.

Let the best Kingdom builders win.

Power will shift from generation to generation. Let it occur naturally. Don't try to legislate it away.

Now, I do not know the details. But if he did what he did in a forthcoming manner from the start- I don't see the problem.

 

[Iconoclast]

Let's get this straight, you would have no problem if after you had 'reformed' your church, your assistant pastor veered off into another strain of Calvinism, decided he couldn't stand being Southern Baptist, and proceeded to split your church?


This was Ernest Reisinger's church. The cradle of the whole Founder's movement. But Icon characterizes the church after Reisinger 'reformed' it as a Babylon from which to flee? Bizarre.

It was Reisinger who was left with a faithful few to try to clean up the mess left by the internecine Calvinist struggle in the church. Icon characterizes them as the dead parts left at the location.


From Reisinger's biography:

"North Pompano split when an associate pastor placed his independent Baptist loyalties ahead of Ernie's desires to influence the Southern Baptists. "It was a painful division--one from which the church never recovered, even to this day. I still cannot understand or explain why this young man willingly fostered division and controversy when he knew going in that he was being called by a Southern Baptist Church to minister in a Southern Baptist Church.""

Ernest-Reisinger.pdf

If after all the struggles to begin a reformation of the dead work as per the original article described,....if after all that people could not see eye to eye, they needed to split.

Here is part of what you left out Jerome which is your m.o......
Following the directions of his deacons to slow down, Ernie quit
making weekly trips to Palm Beach Gardens to preach and lead the
new mission church. The Mission began to unravel and finally
dissolved in the Fall of 1983. That was a very sad day. But, that
controversy infected the mother church, and North Pompano split
when an associate pastor placed his independent Baptist loyalties
ahead of Ernie's desires to influence the Southern Baptists


The split was not over the doctrines of grace, but the handling of the mission church....here:
My husband, John, and I were involved in the Mission and
experienced first-hand the influence of Reformed Baptist
independents and Ernie's associate pastor on several of the Palm
Beach County Mission leaders, resulting, in this case, in a
hard-handed leadership style. Their lack of gentleness led to
irreparable controversy. (At the time, we could not put our finger
on what it was but now we know. They were not warm-hearted
Calvinists. That put them world's apart from Ernie's style


It was wrong shepherding...not doctrine at issue according to this person!

It's ok Jerome...we have seen you do this before:wavey:

 

[Mexdeaf]

Ok, lets look at those verses.

Jhn 6:63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.
64 But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him.
65 And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.

None of these verses say a man must have spiritual life to believe.

Jesus is speaking of the word of God here. The only persons who can come to Jesus are those who believe the word of God. These persons do not believe the word of God, therefore they cannot come to Jesus. This was also shown earlier in this same chapter.

Jhn 6:44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.
45 It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me.

Verse 44 is very similar to verse 65 except that it says no man can come to Jesus unless the Father draws him. This is a favorite verse of Calvinism.

However, Cals/DoGs almost always neglect to show verse 45 that shows how a person is drawn. They are drawn when they are taught of the Father and learn from him. No supernatural regeneration mentioned here. And how do they learn? From hearing the word of God.

Rom 10:17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

Does Paul say faith comes by supernatural regeneration? No, he says it comes by simply hearing the word of God. And earlier Paul had asked how any man can believe on Jesus unless he has heard of him. Again, no mention of a supernatural regeneration being required to believe, but simply to hear of Jesus.

1 Cor 2:11-14 does not teach that a person must be regenerated to believe, it teaches that we have received the Spirit to know the "things" that are freely given us of God. It does not say we have received the Spirit so that we can believe. You are reading into scripture what is not there.

Paul has taught in several other places that a person first believes before receiving the Spirit, such as Galatians 3:2 and Eph 1:13, Acts 19:2.

Gal 3:2 This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?

Paul's question demands the answer that these Galatians received the Spirit by first believing, refuting the Reformed view.

Eph 2:5 Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved; )

This verse does not teach that regeneration precedes faith, it does not even mention faith. It simply says God has quickened us or made us alive who were dead in sins.

Verse 8 refutes the Reformed view, because it says that by grace have we been saved THROUGH faith. It shows faith preceded being saved or made alive.

You have not shown one verse that shows regeneration precedes faith. There is no such scripture, you can't show it.

... and to you it is as clear as mud.

"A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still."

I'll waste no further time sharing Scripture with you. God bless.

 

[Iconoclast]

... and to you it is as clear as mud.

"A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still."

I'll waste no further time sharing Scripture with you. God bless.

:thumbs::wavey::thumbsup:

 

[Mexdeaf]

Mex...No...I don't....but since I am quoting from scriptures that are undeniably the Word of God if I am doing Biblical witnessing (which I'll sadly admit I don't do enough of) I don't really feel the need to do so UNLESS that particular question (about which version is the pure Word of God) comes up (and it HAS before in my experience).

HOWEVER....I would HAVE NO PROBLEM or hesitation identifying myself as such if I were asked too. My beliefs about that matter are both sincere and dear to me.

Bro.Greg:saint:

And I would have no hesitation identifying myself as a believer in the DoG if I were asked to. However I would hope that the individual would not "throw out the baby with the bath water" before they got to know HOW I defined myself in that term.

Here on the BB there are certain individuals on both sides who will do so when they hear "C" or "A".

 

[Winman]

... and to you it is as clear as mud.

"A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still."

I'll waste no further time sharing Scripture with you. God bless.

None of the scripture you provided teaches that regeneration precedes faith. The scripture in 1 Corinthians 2 and Ephesians you showed did not even mention faith.

I on the other hand have already shown at least 4 scriptures that all say a person must believe to have LIFE. Regeneration means to make alive again.

By the way, the word regeneration proves we are not born dead in sin as many falsely teach. If we were born dead, then it should properly be said we are "generated" not REgenerated. The prefix RE in this word means AGAIN, proving that we were once alive before we died in sin. When we accept Christ we are REgenerated or made alive AGAIN.

Luk 15:24 For this my son was dead, and is alive again; he was lost, and is found. And they began to be merry.

If you do not want to know truth, that is your choice.

 

[quantumfaith]

Yes, but we need to define what we mean by "upfront".

No pastoral candidate should feel obligated to reveal any particular about himself that is openly embraced by the denomination.

Calvinism is perfectly consistent with both the historical standpoints of the denomination and with the Baptist Faith and Message.

Why should he be expected to come in declaring something about himself that Southern Baptists have embraced warmly since 1845?

Now, if by upfront you mean that when he is asked by a pulpit committee specifically what his soteriology is- CERTAINLY. He should be totally forthcoming.

But if not asked he ought to assume that it is a non-issue for that church.

It IS a non-issue for the denomination of which that church is a part, after all.

I think you are wrong on this Luke. I feel you know I am not saying this to "poo poo" your side of the aisle. When a pastor (prospective pastor or staff member comes) they should indeed be upfront about their positions. Being upfront removes the potential for any "surprises" in the pastor church relationship, it is best for both. I have personally watched this damage churches and impact the local community as a result.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

have personally watched this damage churches and impact the local community as a result.

Ohhh my, what happened.....did stores & businesses close? Were people put outa work & loose their homes & forced to live on the street? Did it create widows & orphans? Oh the agony, the agony! Bad Calvinist.....Bad Bad Calvinists.....Nazi's & Bolsheviks & disease laden infidels. Certainly Yankee Conspirators! :laugh:

 

[Bronconagurski]

I think the best kingdom builders should win. I don't think EITHER side should use established power to stifle the growth of the other.

If Calvinists are better at persuading people that what they believe is true- then Calvinists take over.

If Arminians are better at it- then Arminians take over.

What I don't like is when one side is better at winning people, doing missions, building churches, etc... but they are assaulted by the established power simply so the established power can STAY the established power.

There have been times that Arminians were better at convincing people. Under Finney Arminians took over. Calvinists reigned before Finney.

Now there is a resurgence of Calvinism.

Let the best Kingdom builders win.

Power will shift from generation to generation. Let it occur naturally. Don't try to legislate it away.

Now, I do not know the details. But if he did what he did in a forthcoming manner from the start- I don't see the problem.

Win what? I don't understand this view of Christianity. All Christians are part of the body of Christ. Power struggles that do not involve false doctrine or blatant sin are not from God. If you don't like your Pastor because you think he does a poor job in certain areas, then go volunteer to help in those areas. He will have a heart attack and problem solved. Seriously, though, I learned a long time ago that if God has shown you a true problem, then maybe He wants you to work on it yourself. Who do people think they are to just oust a Pastor because of petty differences that don't involve false teaching? No side wins when this happens. That is wordly thinking. You want to be first? Jesus has the formula: Matthew 20:21-28 (KJV)
21 And he said unto her, What wilt thou? She saith unto him, Grant that these my two sons may sit, the one on thy right hand, and the other on the left, in thy kingdom.
22 But Jesus answered and said, Ye know not what ye ask. Are ye able to drink of the cup that I shall drink of, and to be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with? They say unto him, We are able.
23 And he saith unto them, Ye shall drink indeed of my cup, and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with: but to sit on my right hand, and on my left, is not mine to give, but it shall be given to them for whom it is prepared of my Father.
24 And when the ten heard it, they were moved with indignation against the two brethren.
25 But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them.
26 But it shall not be so among you: but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister;
27 And whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant:
28 Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.

You want to be first? Put others first and serve them. That isn't popular preaching in this win at all costs generation, but that is what Jesus said.